IMPORTANT POINTS
• The distribution of powers between the State and the District Level Authorities, under the Police Act is only for administrative purpose. No doubt, the District Level Authority cannot adjudicate matters relating to officers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. But the contrary situation is not prescribed by the statute. In fact, the statute indicates that the State Authority does have the power in the circumstances prescribed under Section 110 (1) (ii), to proceed against police officers irrespective of their rank, in its discretion.
• The mental harassment caused to the complainant, could be treated as a form of grievous hurt, so as to attract the jurisdiction of the State Police Complaints Authority, in terms of Section 110 (1) (ii) of the Police Act, 2011.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Dr.K.P.Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Sri.Aravindakumar Babu, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 and 2.

2. This Appeal is filed by the writ petitioner to challenge the judgment dated 6.6.2019 whereby, the challenge to jurisdiction of the State Police Complaints Authority in proceeding against the writ petitioner was rejected with the observation that the State Police Complaints Authority acted within jurisdiction under Section 110(1)(ii) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 in entertaining the complaint of Sri.P.B.Maheswaran (respondent No.3).

3. The writ petitioner had questioned the jurisdiction of the State Police Complaints Authority with the projection that he is an officer below the rank of Superintendent of Police and since the State Authority is vested with powers to entertain/adjudicate complaints against higher ranked officers of and above the rank of Superintendent of Police, the cognizance of the complaint against him was beyond the jurisdiction of the State Police Complaints Authority.

4. The complaint by the third respondent, in substance, was that the writ petitioner had falsely implicated him in the Crime No.382 of 2014 of the Edathala Police Station, registered under Section 17(3) of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, Section 3 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act and also other provisions of the IPC. The accused then moved the High Court for quashing of the FIR and in the Crl.M.C.6391/2014, the High Court under the judgment dated 12.1.2015 quashed the FIR and all further proceedings in the Crime No.382/2014. Following the above exoneration of the accused, the 3rd respondent moved the State Police Complaints Authority for appropriate relief, under the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

5. While noting those facts in its order dated 17.6.2015 (Ext.P1), the State Police Complaints Authority observed that the High Court had quashed the FIR with the finding that, there was no material to show the involvement of the accused in unauthorised money lending activity and therefore, it was treated to be a clear case of abuse of the legal process. The State Police Complaints Authority accordingly found enough justification to hold that the errant police officer must face Departmental action. The complaint of the third respondent was then forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha, for appropriate action.

6. When the above action was challenged in the W.P.(C)29730 of 2016, the learned Judge adverted to the provisions of the Section 110(1)(ii) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and noted that under Sub-Section(ii), grave complaints against officers of other ranks can also be entertained, by the State Police Complaints Authority. The court then observed that inflicting of grievous hurt on any person should not be confined to bodily injuries alone but could also include mental injuries. Thus, the jurisdiction exercised by the State Police Complaints Authority was found to be in order and on that basis, the Writ Petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner can participate in the consequential enquiry proceedings.

7. Assailing the legality of the impugned judgment dated 6.6.2019, the learned Senior Counsel would reiterate that the appellant is a police officer below the rank of Superintendent of Police and therefore, complaint against such officers should be considered by the District Police Complaints Authority, constituted under Section 110(3) of the Police Act. He submits that when statute itself provides for exercise of jurisdiction by two different authorities in respect of officers above and below a particular rank, the exercise of jurisdiction over a lower level officer, by the State Level Authority will amount to usurpation of jurisdiction, of the District Police Authority.

8. In support of the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel Dr.K.P.Satheesan places reliance on the followi